Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Armstrong, Lovell and Cernan released their signed open letter [politico.com] yesterday. You may not like what have to say, but characterizing their statements, which are less than 24 hours old, as "old news" is ridiculous. Most of the criticisms they make aren't addressed by the latest administration statements, either.

Buzz Aldrin had the best take on the goal to return to the moon. He said it was "more like reaching for past glory than striving for new triumphs." It's hard to ignore him. Aldrin was universally acknowledged by the Apollo astronauts as being the smartest. He was known as Dr. Rendezvous because all he focused on was orbital mechanics of spacecraft and getting them to line up. He graduated from West Point and then MIT. As he's a tough SOB. Some moon hoaxer who called Aldrin a liar and a thief got socked in the face. [youtube.com]

Anyway, Aldrin is a Republican who took Communion on the moon. It's not as if he's a Democrat trying to get behind his President.

We're not going to the moon to go to the moon; we're going to the moon in preparation for Mars. The problem it's being posed more as the former than the latter. I mean, if we can't even get to the moon, what chance do we have for Mars?

I'm not saying he's wrong, I just don't know the full context of his remarks.

For the past six years America's civil space program has been aimed at returning astronauts to the Moon by 2020. That's the plan announced by President George W. Bush in January of 2004. That plan also called for developing the technologies that would support human expeditions to Mars, our ultimate destination in space. But two things happened along the way since that announcement, which became known as the Vision for Space Exploration.

First, the President failed to fully fund the program, as he had initially promised. As a result, each year the development of the rockets and spacecraft called for in the plan slipped further and further behind. Second and most importantly, NASA virtually eliminated the technology development effort for advanced space systems. Equally as bad, NASA also raided the Earth and space science budgets in the struggle to keep the program, named Project Constellation, on track. Even that effort fell short.

To keep the focus on the return to the Moon, NASA pretty much abandoned all hope of preparing for Mars exploration. It looked like building bases on the Moon would consume all of NASA's resources. Yet despite much complaining, neither a Republican-controlled nor a Democratic-controlled Congress was willing or able to add back those missing and needed funds. The date of the so-called return to the Moon slipped from 2020 to heaven-knows when. At the same time, there was no money to either extend the life of the Space Shuttle, due to be retired this year, or that of the International Space Station, due to be dropped into the Pacific Ocean in 2015, a scant handful of years after it was completed.

So, it's no surprise that Bush failed to fund the program fully, since he put our society 1 trillion dollars [costofwar.com] in the hole due to the war in Iraq. Now, NASA is cannibalizing all its other programs in order to save the one effort, the moon, and the larger goal of going to mars has been largely forgotten. What Obama did was right.

(Sure, go ahead and mod me down, but you can't escape the fact that Obama is facing a reality where the budget needs to be cut to bring the deficit under control, whereas the past administration and congress continually lived in fantasyland believing that they could spend whatever they wanted.)

I would be tempted to mod you up because of the basic truth. But remember, while Bush was pushing for the war in Iraq (with both Rummy and Dick pulling the puppet strings) it was congress that rolled over, amongst both parties. So shorthanding it as "Bush" is easy and commonplace, but is also really misleading. But Obama, as well as the new congressmen, did inherit this mess and have to deal with it. Those who shout about Obama and the unbalanced budget are myopic at best.

So the new compromise is "half a spaceship"- one that can land, but not launch. Only a politician could invent that one. NASA programs have horizons of 10 -2 5 years, but politicians respond to two year election cycles. Bush cancels shuttle. Obama cancels is successor. Obama need better science advice.

Obama has a very clear plan. It goes like this:
1.Stimulate economy with massive government spending in 09-10.
2.Slash government budget in 2011. (this includes NASA funding)
3.Cross fingers that step 1 works.
4. Increased tax revenues caused by step 1 and spending cuts from step 2 yield budget surplus at then end of 2011.
5. Say, "See, I balanced the budget!" in 2012.
6. Get reelected in 2012.

Government funding of space travel? I dunno, sounds mighty socialist to me. If we didn't cut funding I bet Obama would launch a statue of Lenin into orbit to gaze down disapprovingly at our capitalist paradise!

In all seriousness, without a good heavy launcher we'll be at a strategic disadvantage, and the constant scuppering of next-generation space vehicle development is starting to look really stupid. Between VentureStar and Constellation, exactly how many tax dollars have been wasted because some penny-pinching bureaucrat decided it would be "cheaper in the long run?"

It seems more logical to use a modular approach rather than One Big Custom Package approach. The large portions of a ship can be carried up using rockets that don't have to be man-rated, reducing their cost. Smaller, safer lifters can then take the personnel into LEO to meet up with the rest of the ship, dock, and then fly off together to study asteroids or whatnot. This appears to be what Obama is leaning toward.

Between VentureStar and Constellation, exactly how many tax dollars have been wasted because some penny-pinching bureaucrat decided it would be "cheaper in the long run?"

You do understand that there was a very real possibility that Constellation *would not work*, right? Again, look to your history:

When NASA was first planning their moon shots they were looking at the Saturn C-3 as being large enough to carry the needed payload. There was a good margin of safety. Going with the C-3 would have saved them LOTS of money. But they decided to go for the more expensive C-5 because they didn't know if their capsule estimates were solid.

They weren't. As the weight of everything started going up, that margin of safety was eroded, then eliminated. If they had stayed with the C-3 they wouldn't have made it to the moon until the 1970s, if ever. The lesson here has been repeated since with practically every launcher program, ESPECIALLY the Shuttle.

So what about Constellation? In this case they calculated that the SRBs could *just* do the job. If nothing started getting heavier then it had the power to get the module into orbit with a small margin of safety on the growth side. But then things started getting heavier. So then the upper stage grew along with it, eliminating the margin. Then it kept growing. Then they had to re-engineer the SRBs to get the power back to just enough. That cycle showed no signs of ending, and history suggests that it had a couple more iterations to go.

The lesson remains clear: build much more rocket than you need, or you'll likely end up not flying.

It's interesting to note that the Air Force is taking over low-high orbit exploration. I recently read an article that if not mirrors slightly what Armstrong is talking about; it certainly elaborates on what proposition America has for it's space exploration future. The Air Force is proposing a new reusable platform aircraft for exploration; following in the long line of advanced craft with the same naming convention such as the Bell X-1 (which broke the sonic barrier) http://www.dailytech.com/US+Air+Force+ [dailytech.com]

Actually, if you're a space geek, the military taking over the space program is the best news you could wish for. Just take a look at who gets a budget. To the DOD, NASA's budget is a rounding error. If you actually want to see this stuff get funded, the Air Force is the best place for it.

Apollo Astronauts: Obama Space Plan Will Put the U.S. "on a long downhill slide to mediocrity"

April 14, 2010 (LPAC)—In an open letter, obtained by long-time space reporter Jay Barbree, and first reported on the NBC Nightly News Tuesday evening, three of the Apollo astronauts who embody the dedication, no-nonesense attitude, and commitment that brought this nation to the Moon, attacked President Obama's proposal to kill NASA's Constellation program. Neil Armstrong, Commander of Apollo 11, which landed the first astronauts on the Moon; James Lovell, the Commander of the near-fatal Apollo 13 mission (NASA's "finest hour"); and Gene Cernan, Commander of Apollo 17, and the last man to set foot upon the Moon, described the cancellation as "devastating."

Reprising the history of the American space program, the three former astronauts state: "World leadership in space was not achieved easily. In the first half-century of the space age, our country made a significant financial investment, thousands of Americans dedicated themselves to the effort, and some gave their lives to achieve the dream of a nation." No program in modern history, they state, "has been so effective in motivating the young to do 'what has never been done before.'"

Nor was the development and design of the Constellation program haphazard or ill-conceived, they state. "The Ares rocket family was patterned after the [Wernher] von Braun Modular concept so essential to the success of the Saturn 1B and the Saturn V" rockets, which took them to the Moon. Although we will have "wasted our current $10-plus billion investment in Constellation," equally important, "we will have lost the many years required to recreate the equivalent of what we will have destroyed." This, for a second time, following the cancellation of the follow-on missions to Apollo, to live on the Moon.

The timing of this letter is no accident. On Thursday, President Obama makes a whirlwind stop in Florida, at the Kennedy Space Center, to try to sell this destruction of manned space flight. Three days ago, more than 4,000 people rallied nearby in protest, to tell the President what they think of his plan. There has been virtually NO support anywhere for this "outsourcing" of NASA. Out of 435 Representatives and 100 Senators, ONE has backed the President. And he will see, again, the outrage of the American people.

Manned space flight isn't about being "cost effective", "high priority", or "a good return on investment" (yes, I've heard all of these terms used in regards to spaceflight). It's about exploration, curiosity, and wonder. I challenge you to tell someone who was around on July 20, 1969 that manned spaceflight is pointless.

It's about doing something simply to show that it can be done, like the explorers of centuries past. I suppose some people find that concept unimportant or even boring.

Manned space flight isn't about being "cost effective", "high priority", or "a good return on investment" (yes, I've heard all of these terms used in regards to spaceflight). It's about exploration, curiosity, and wonder. I challenge you to tell someone who was around on July 20, 1969 that manned spaceflight is pointless.

Challenge accepted! I was born just days after Sputnik was launched, and grew up as a space junkie, following every step of the space race, and watching the Moon landing live.

It was many things: a stunning technical achievement (we went to the Moon just as soon as it was technically possible to do so), a stunning geo-political achievement (showing - as it was intended to - the advantage U.S. society had over Soviet society, in a non-destructive manner), and one of the most important symbolic events in the history of the human race.

But it was a colossal scientific failure. Nothing was learned that would not have been learned at a fraction of the cost using unmanned vehicles. Even the "spin off" argument fails to recognize that a focused technology development program could have accomplished similar things far more cheaply.

And today, "return to the moon" lacks all of the favorable features of the Apollo program - it won't be a stunning technical achievement, or an impressive geo-political or symbolic one. It will just be another colossally expensive scientific failure, compared to what could be achieved with similar money on space probes.

It's about doing something simply to show that it can be done, like the explorers of centuries past. I suppose some people find that concept unimportant or even boring.
I would say that those people are unimportant and boring.

But is has already been done. An actual viable plan to get to Mars would be a new exploration, but no one has ever been willing to put up the cash for that.

Did space exploration, and discovery end with Apollo? Hardly! Essentially all exploration and discovery has been due to unmanned probes and observatories, manned flight has returned essentially nothing along these lines. The one contribution it has made - fixing the Hubble - could have been finessed more cheaply and effectively simply by building and launching more Hubbles.

So yes, the symbolic value of manned space flight is past (unless genuine new goals are set and adequately funded) and the Shuttle and ISS operations have been a pointless waste of money. Expendable unmanned launchers and vehicles would have gotten us farther, faster and cheaper.

My opinion will probably get modded down, simply because someone on slashdot disagrees with it.

I think giving up on manned space flight is a mistake. I think MORE money put into it will eventually bring new technologies and new technologies bring economic success as American CEOs love outsourcing the economic benefits of existing technology.

That said, I really think people have lost a sense of gravity for where the country is right now.

A year ago the world and the US was on the edge of falling into an eco

War in Iraq or return to the moon? You had the choice and you chose poorly. Don't pretend that this is just the new guy's problem or that spending money on health care is the issue. If America is broke (and it is, as well as being broken) you have to be more circumspect about where you spend your limited funds. Constellation failed on the last guy's watch because the vision for creating it and the funds for building it were limited from the outset.
See here: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09844.pdf [gao.gov]

It would be far better spent on NASA than on bailing out banks and GM. Now we have no more jobs than before AND we're in deeper debt than ever in our history. I'm well aware this started under Bush, BTW. The bailout was essentially his idea. Obama took it to a new level, both were wrong. You can't justify Obama based on Bush. Wrong is wrong inherently and it's consequences could give a rat's about who you voted for.

I don't know many proponents of the private sector that believe it is the solution for everything. The private sector is better at job creation, it's better at near-term efficiency for most ordinary endeavors. There are a very few things, however, where it is more economically feasible for government to do a thing, than it is for the private sector. For example, maintenance of a military, or building a highway system that spans a continent; these are things where government successfully drives industry. The space program, in terms of the kinds of energies (literal and figurative) needed to succeed at it, is one of those few things that government can establish better than can the private sector. That's just basic economics.

Besides, I thought liberals liked nuance, or is that out of fashion now?

With all due respect to those great men, and their accomplishments, they are wrong.

First of all, everyone take a deep breath, pull up Google, and remember that the space shuttle program was cancelled SIX YEARS AGO by BUSH. That is not a decision by the Obama administration.

Second, the Constellation program was already years behind schedule, billions overbudget, and would still have resulted in years of us paying the Russians for a ride to the ISS, if they could have even worked out the problems and gotten a system flying. There can be no doubt whatsoever that Constellation would have resulted in a massively overpriced, low flight-rate system that was no better than the shuttle it replaced.

By giving private industry more incentives to proceed with their plans for commercial spacecraft (which NASA was previously competing with and blocking investment in), the Obama administration has made it vastly MORE likely that we will return to the Moon and space in general. This time, we will have a business reason to STAY THERE, instead of just going sightseeing.

I am overall not a fan of the Obama administration, but on this one thing, they have absolutely nailed it. This decision is good for the space industry, good for America, and good for the future of mankind.

Actually, I am a space scientist. In fact we know all to well about the economics of doing our work. For many years we've had to scrounge money and expertise to engineer our projects. I have been advocating in Canada for many years about the problems with the CSA supporting human space flight while leaving potentially important scientific work behind. That is how things like micro- and nano- satellites and the cubesats have evolved.

As far as one offs - you are obviously not familiar with space instrumentat

Neil Armstrong was on the Corporate Board of Thiokol, which became ATK Launch Systems Group. ATK Launch Systems Group was contracted to provide the solid fueled booster for Constellation. With its cancellation, ATK Launch Systems Group is losing value. Now ask yourself, how many shares of ATK Launch Systems Group does Neil Armstrong own from his time on the board? Somehow, I don't think Neil will be coming forth with the answer.

I'm not sure why clout should matter. Evaluate the arguments on their merits where possible. I am a fairly strong Obama supporter on most issues (I wish he'd be a bit more assertive on gay rights and financial regulation, but given I'm straight and work for a hedge fund, the feeling doesn't have the weight of self interest behind it), but the sole point of complete disagreement is his vision, or lack thereof, for NASA. I've heard the arguments that the "new" NASA will somehow develop all the necessary interplanetary exploration technologies instead of wasting money returning to the moon, but I'm skeptical that we'll develop useful technology without a direct mission requirement that it satisfies. It just seems like yet another step in the long, slow decline of our space program since the Challenger accident.

For the record, I don't think Constellation was such a great idea either, but at least it provided a goal. I just wish a president would have the courage to call for enough of a NASA budget to not only go to another planet/moon for visit, but to set up a permanent presence. It's not even the whole extinction worry some people seem to have, I just feel that our pioneering drive was responsible for some of the greatest advances, both cultural and economic, in our history (also some of the greatest atrocities, but we'll have to hope there aren't any natives this time around).

Hopefully, that litmus test won't be applied. While I do have the utmost respect for Armstrong, Lovell and Cernan as people with brass balls the size of a Volkswagen bus, they are not accountants or business people. The number one financial rule in any project is: don't throw good money after bad money. It's gone. Don't make it worse. And from what I understand from the Constellation project, it was just not going to fly - not without pouring enough money and time into it to start from scratch. As a result, it makes sense to scratch it, even if this means short-term pain. What I'm hoping for is that the knowledge that we don't have a complete system for putting people and cargo into orbit spurs people into creating that system.

I really hope that the scratching of the Constellation project frees up the resources to create a real lifting program - or at least frees up resources to provide technical assistance to commercial ventures trying to do the same.

Armstrong is also an engineer and served on the Challenger shuttle accident investigation board. Up till now he has stayed clear of politics and has been on the board of directors of many companies so yes he is also a business person.

Jim Lovell has fromal education includesUniversity of Wisconsin–MadisonUnited States Naval Academy (BS, 1952)United States Naval Test Pilot School, Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland (1958)Aviation Safety School, University of Southern California (1961)Advanced Management Program, Harvard Business School (1978)I think that last one means that he has a firm grasp of business as well as engineering.

Cernan only has two degrees in engineering so he may be the least qualified of the group but then President Obama has zero education or experence in business, engineering, or accounting. His degree is in law.

Frankly these man have nothing to gain at this time. They have all done what a very select few people have done. They are all pretty much set for the rest of their lives so they don't need any more money. To dismiss them I think is the height of arrogance.

And to make matter worse President Obama isn't saving money by killing the Ares he is changing it from a program with at some goals to a welfare program! We are going to keep spending money on developing the Orion but instead of using it for maned flights we are going to use it as the worlds most expensive life boat for the space station.We are still going to depend on Russia for manned access to space.We are going to spend money on developing a HLLV with no goal or mission for it!Yea this is A FREAKING NIGHTMARE OF A PLAN!What this will let President Obama do is kill them off piece by piece but only after dropping many billions of dollars on them.Frankly this plan seems to be to be the WORST POSSIBLE plan. Frankly it sounds like something Col Hogan would talk Col Clink into doing!So to all those that willing to dismiss these three well educated, extremely brillant, and wise men I just want you to think about it long and hard.This is a freaking disaster.

Armstrong is also an engineer and served on the Challenger shuttle accident investigation board. Up till now he has stayed clear of politics and has been on the board of directors of many companies so yes he is also a business person.

Lynn Swann, Nancy Reagan, Michael Jordan, and Lance Armstrong are or have been on the board of directors for various companies completely unrelated to their core competencies. Look up the concept of the celebrity director on a board. Not to say that Neil Armstrong is necessarily bad, but it also doesn't mean he's any good.Jim Lovell might have a business degree, but quite frankly, I'd need to know more before ascribing him business savvy.

Frankly these man have nothing to gain at this time. They have all done what a very select few people have done. They are all pretty much set for the rest of their lives so they don't need any more money. To dismiss them I think is the height of arrogance.

"Jim Lovell might have a business degree, but quite frankly, I'd need to know more before ascribing him business savvy."A degree from Harvard. You must at least say that he has a good business education."The fact that I'm questioning their ability to properly assess a business decision has no impact on their past achievements - I'm sure we can agree on that."You are so willing to support this and keep throwing hero worship into it let me ask you.Obama has zero business, economic, and engineering experience

He is presenting this plan as his own but of course he has advisers but who? What are they qualifications. It is silly to assume that the quality of an unknown source is it not? As to your two year old source of problems.

"Both vehicles have a history of weight issues;"Every air and space craft does. Including the Apollo and LEM.

"Excessive vibration during launch threatens system design;"That was one of the reasons for flight testing.

" Uncertainty about how flight characteristics will be impacted by a fifth

The Shuttle basically is a jobs program (for Florida, mainly). But it's an awfully expensive one. Redirecting the funds to more efficient unmanned and private industry programs will accomplish more with the same money.

Landing on the moon did an AMAZING amount to boost the morale of the country, cause people to dream, push themselves, open their minds to possibilities, etc. If it weren't for landing on the moon, the country (and thus the world) would be decades behind where we currently are.

I'd go so far as to say if we, or hell..anyone else, for that matter...could even just land on the moon again...the same thing would happen. Did it provide immediate benefits that justified the cost? No. What it did instead was inspire not three generations of people to dream, to reach for the stars, to explore, to innovate...

Well, space research started in the late 50's, and Apollo was over and done by the very early 70's. Expecting a benefit in 10-15 years isn't exactly short-sided. Instead, we had the economic malaise of the period. The space program has always been about bread and circuses, so once the show is over all you have is nice memories of essentially meaningless stunts.

Actually teflon was an accident in a lab where they were working on alternative refrigerants several years before the Manhattan Project existed. (old refrigerators used anhydrous ammonia or sulfur dioxide, so saying "it kind sucked if they started to leak" is a major understatement.)

And the chemical eventually chosen to replace those used in refrigeration, and also in many other things, was Freon, a chlorofluorocarbon. It was invented by Thomas Midgley, Jr.

He also was the bright person who realized that adding tetra-ethyl lead to gasoline made an engine stop knocking. He was responsible for the 'discovery' of, or the discovery of a use of, two of the most dangerous chemicals of the 20th century. Freon did great damage to the Ozone Layer. Humans living today have some 600 or so times more lead in their systems than those who lived before the use of tetra-ethyl lead as an additive in gasoline.

Truly, the world would be a better place if he had picked another career, like dentistry, if he had to be born at all.

Well, maybe if he hadn't invented Freon, the refrigerators could have continued to use SO2, so, maybe more people would have died because of leaking fridges, but hey, the precious ozone layer would be saved.

It's great when you already know that Freon causes damage to Ozone or the danger of tetra-ethyl lead, but at the time they were the best solutions to the problems.

Do you also wish that coal powered steam engine was never invented, so we could just use nuclear power instead of pumping so much CO2 to the a

Don't be so sure about that. For 2 years I was a single parent on welfare/food stamps going through school until graduation. Currently I work directly on Orion as a software engineer, my job likely being saved by the change in stance Obama has just (or at least will tomorrow) announced. And I've much more than paid back in taxes what I took out of the system.

Too much of this debate is focusing on whether the manned flight investments of the past were worthwhile. As if redirecting our efforts now would denigrate what Armstrong represented in the 60's. But that's not the question. The question is, given the initiatives now on the table for the future, both manned and unmanned, both in private industry and government, which are most promising and deserving of funding going forward? What is the mission compelling us to put so much of our limited S&T dollars into manned space flight going forward? There is none.

This is why I cannot get on board with the Democrats. Their "good intentions" are seriously misguided, and in fact fly in the face of all modern economic research. We now have unemployment benefits extended up to 2 years - 2 YEARS!!! Talk about an incentive to not work! Meanwhile, the Republicans are cast as heartless because they want to for

yeah, go to hell those who agreed into loans they know they couldn't afford if their "gamble" didn't pay off./me signs for loans he knows he can afford on a "worst case" scenario. (Yes, worst case for me means working at stop and shop, walmart, and mcdonalds. I'm not mexican, just ok with working "below" where my education has taken me.)

The post I replied to referred to unemployment benefits, made necessary because the economy tanked after the real estate bubble popped.

That you and several others assume I'm talking about bailing out stupid people with ARMs (when a slightly more logical misunderstanding would be to assume I was talking about the bank bailouts) says volumes about how your resentment is being misdirected on the poor for political ends.

It's 'amazing' how athletic healthy people carrying M-16's and sticking together in large groups 'never' get picked out by rapists. When people getting paid 360 K a year are giving people who get paid 50 K (or less) economic advice, is it any wonder the poorer people believe it uncritically? The people who showed some caution were encouraged to abandon it. Only the ones who were both really well informed and generally suspicious sorts failed to fall for the line. What those uninformed p

So, here's something. Every financial advisor I've talked to said that any sort of fancy adjustable rate mortgage is/was a horrible idea. So did most of the articles I read online. The only people saying that it's a great idea? The people selling them.

Stop comparing mortgage brokers to doctors and start comparing them to used car salesmen, which is a much more similar career path. Should we still be expecting people to take their advice uncritically?

Actually, Armstrong is notorious for shutting up. He's a very private person and generally avoids the limelight. That's what makes his statement so surprising - he's usually gone out of his way to stay out of the political infighting.

If he's opening his mouth now, Obama's proposal must have rubbed him the wrong way in a really, really big way. When was the last time you heard a public statement from Neil Armstrong?

But I still can't agree with his arguments (yes, I read them). I think killing NASA's booster programs HAD to happen.

Let's not forget how this was supposed to work: NASA was supposed to build a manned program on the backs of the military's hardware. If there was going to be a major space program beyond that, it would be those same aerospace contractors who would be designing, building and supplying the systems.

One of those military groups was the US Army at Huntsville. They were proposing to build a new booster called the Jupiter V that used several existing boosters to build a single rocket with a total of 1 million pound thrust. Meanwhile the Air Force was starting research on a 1 million pound thrust engine, which the Army was hoping to use to replace their cluster of smaller engines if that program went well. To further differentiate the new design from the older Jupiters, they re-named it Saturn, "the one after Jupiter".

The Air Force would have nothing of it. They had already limited the Army to short range _weapons_, which is why the Saturn was a "launcher", not a "missile" (although there was TABS, look it up). As soon as Saturn was being floated the AF was all over it, trying to get it cancelled. Yet the newly-formed ARPA saw merit, and overrode their objections, causing a major hissy-fit in the Pentagon.

So when NASA came along, everyone saw a way out -- hand Saturn to NASA. Now the Army would be out of the missile game, which would make the Air Force happy. ARPA would still get the spy-sat launcher they wanted, just built from a different budget. The rest is history.

The problem is that NASA was suddenly in the launcher business, for no reason other than political expediency. And they've tried to hold onto that business since then, in spite of the major problems it's caused for everyone involved. If all went well I wouldn't say this, but it hasn't, so I think the evidence is clear that they need to get out of the launcher biz.

What a waste. A great man that decided to not use his fame to push his own agenda and to become of all things a TEACHER! I mean really what good is that.Actually I give him more credit because of that. This finally pushed him to take a stand. It is a shame really that he needed to.

Wow. You are so misguided, there's hardly space here to correct you, not that I would expect you to be swayed by reality, anyways.

To call the Constellation program "mostly-completed" is purest fantasy -- the paper designs are years behind schedule, simple matters of, say, building and testing the boosters, engines, capsules and control systems are left as an exercise for the reader. The fact that the concepts and designs are simply a rehash of Apollo makes the lack of performance on Constellation just that much sadder. Fact is, buying Soyuz rides to the ISS for years and years was already part of the plan, even if Constellation had stayed on schedule.

Second, the notion that ANY Administration would base the entire national space policy on who holds a single Congressional district is just delusional. Fiddling the budget between Ames, JPL, JSC, KSC, etc. sure, but axing a cornucopia of aerospace contracts like Constellation actually shows the political will to piss off a LOT of people in a lot of districts. I actually have to give the Administration points for recognizing that the project was way over-budget, way behind schedule, not very well thought out and giving it the axe. Then they turned around and increased NASA's budget for things that actually might prove to be useful (or at least more interesting than the "Hummerrrricaa!! FUCK YEAH!!" that putting men in LEO provides).

Calling someone else a "total scumbag" in a sentence where you've already mentioned Tom DeLay is grammatically incorrect. It's like saying "Sure, Stalin was bad, but Dave in Accounting is evil".

Ares/Constellation was attempting to create a new 'modern' rocket versus 1970's technology. You can't simply take new technology, strap it together with a rocket and watch it fly to space and back. This takes time and money. The fact that Neil Armstrong rarely speaks out should say more about what he thinks then anything else. Maybe he does have some support for his employer, but that is besides the point when he very rarely speaks out.

Rocket science is difficult for a reason....and the reason we won't get to the asteroid belt in our lifetimes is because we have politicians who are not visionary and can only think up to 3 months in the future. We do not have a JFK in office to make goals and follow through on them. Say what you want about our current president and previous presidents, none of them has invested what is required to have NASA seriously content to explore like it is intended.

I am not arguing that commercial is not the way to go...its just that any commercial venture will have the same issues with rockets that NASA does. Until we have the technology to escape the gravity well of Earth reliably, space flight is an expensive luxury at best...and more then likely we will end up sinking just as much money in some commercial company as we would into NASA.

I agree completely. Lately, I've heard many liberals push back the argument, "Your for smaller government, but do you support police and firemen?"

Its a misdirection play on their part. Sure I support the police and the firemen, of MY CITY! Federal tax dollars should not be spent on police or firemen. We have a federal system for a reason, local support for some government functions works much much better than federal support. The feds should get completely out of the education business. Its not mentio

I don't think that, given all the other issues facing the country, putting together a space station or another manned mission are really priorities.

When will it be a priority? When China lands on Mars? When the EU, China or Russia colonize the Moon? When we detect an incoming asteroid?

This is shortsighted policy at it's finest. How much additional funding did NASA require to make Constellation viable? As I recall it was only a few billion. We spend hundreds of billions to force people into a broken health insurance market, hundreds of billions bailing out companies that deserved to fail and hundreds of billions invading countries that never attacked us. We can't find a few billion to keep a manned space program? Pathetic.

It's not just that. It's also a question of getting something for your money.

Government all around the world give unemployment or 'make work' projects. The one good thing about Asia is their make work projects tend to be productive. Japan creates lots of jobs as it builds infrastructure like rail and roads and bridges... Maybe it's a waste of money. But hey, at least when they're done creating jobs, they have something to show for it. Not just the physical results, but also the retained skill sets.

Contrast that to just spending money on employment insurance, or making more BS government jobs with bureaucrats and lawyers and tax people.

So yes, maybe the space program is a waste of money. But I'd rather have my tax money go to people working at NASA pushing the envelope of space and engineering, than have people paid to do nothing productive (unemployed, bureaucracy, lawyers...).

"Queen Isabella, that Chris Columbus fellow is asking for another audience. He's still trying to get funding for that foolhardy expedition to discover a shortcut to India by sailing WEST! I beg of you, please don't divert any funding from the domestic programs. Odds are it'll just be a waste of gold and the fool will just get himself killed."

And it won't help to go to the stars. All the stars are dying. The universe ends, probably not with a bang but with a whimper. There is no immortality, there is no escape, there is no cosmic fireball engine to ride into the next universe and the next.

But take comfort, even one million years is far longer than our species has existed. Our civilisation and its cares will be doing well to survive just 1000 more years let alone a million.

All the scientists I know (myself included) would correctly indicate that the sun will not grow cold, but will, after exhausting its core hydrogen fuel, vastly increase its luminosity, and swell in size past the Earth's orbit, essentially vaporizing it. All this, in roughly 5 billion years.

Modern humans as a species are 0.0002 billion years old. Yes, that's three zeroes to the right of the decimal. Do you really believe that we'll care about a couple thousand years worth of exemplars of humanity after

You realize the rockets used were based on Nazi technology to deliver payloads? You realize the computer used for the manned space program was based on the cryptographic requirements to decode the Enigma machines in WWII? Therefore, to enhance technology we can conclude the world needs to be perpetually at war. Isn't this exactly what's already happening?

War provided the necessary impetus to develop the technologies. The fact that we invest more in research during war doesn't make investing in research bad. Investing in pure research is hard to sell though, so we hide it behind something more impressive. Personally, I'd rather we hid it behind a peaceful space program, rather than hiding it behind bombing people in the stone age back to the pre-Cambrian, but that's me.

"You realize the rockets used were based on Nazi technology to deliver payloads?"Actually not really. When the captured they asked Von Braun how he developed the V2 his response was "ask Goddard". The V2 was a scaled up version of Goddard's last rockets right down the the graphite vanes controlled by a gyroscope.The US put Goddard to work during WWII building rockets to help flying boats take off quicker...

No, I don't realize that. I don't think computers would be recognizably different without the manned space program. In fact, I think most of the computers on the ISS are Thinkpads developed with little or no consideration for space exploration. But if I'm wrong, tell me which part of the computer you are referring to.

yes..however NASA spent a shit ton load of money on companies tasked with developing systems for the Apollo.The manufacturing techniques, systems design, and fab development we now use was all created to meet NASA's needs.Think about that. Because of a large push from NASA, the computer industry was born. N private industry was seriously persuing making smaller faster computers. The few in the industry where still thinking large lumbering machines that would be usde by a few of the largest companies.

The computer industry is just one industry that got serious legs under it because of NASA.

Now think how much tax revenues is generated from just the computer industry. It that light the Apollo missions where some of the best investments ever made.

Ironically, that development is what made sending robots to other planets possible.

Frankly, I hate the Robots V. man debate. It should be Manned and robotic.

We need to be doing work that sets the foundation for interstellar missions.

The Apollo Guidance Computer was the first computer based on semiconductors rather than vacuum tubes. It was estimated that building the ACG consumed close to 100% of the world's semiconductor fabrication capacity while the Apollo Program was in operation.

You realize the computer you typed that message on was built using parts originally designed for the manned space program, right?

That doesn't mean WE have to be the ones footing the bill, though. Countries without space programs have computers. It seems silly to think we wouldn't benefit from some other country's space program, so why not let them foot the research bill while we work on coming up with a sensible financial strategy (not that we'll actually do that, but still).

It seems silly to think we wouldn't benefit from some other country's space program

So, their space program is going to employ American citizens, whom spend their wages in American communities and generate tax revenue for American Government? They will let their space program benefit our military, in the form of communications and recon capabilities? They will share all technologies developed for their space program without charging us for them?

so why not let them foot the research bill while we work on coming up with a sensible financial strategy

The 2009 Federal Budget [wikipedia.org] included $3,100,000,000,000 of spending. NASA's 2009 fiscal year budget [nasa.gov] was $17,614,200,000. That amounts to 0.5682% of Federal spending. In reality it's considerably less than that, when you account for appropriations that weren't part of the budget (war spending, bailouts, stimulus, etc.)

I repeat my statement from another thread: Gutting the manned space program to save money is shortsighted and idiotic policy. NASA is not the reason that Federal red ink is spiraling out of control.

The Saturn V's gone. The shuttle is in it's waning years. Constellation is cancelled. We have no launch vehicle anymore.

But it's ok, if we need someone shot into space, we'll just ask the Russians or Chinese. The Indians are getting close too. Apparently THEY still see reasons to maintain and develop space programs. What's our ruddy excuse?

The Apollo mission didn't create those industries. There was some technology developed in the course of the Apollo project that had broader applications. But, computers were already being developed, plastics were already being developed.

If you want to develop useful new technologies, wouldn't it make more sense to invest directly in research and development, rather than investing in a giant publicity stunt in the hopes that there might be some useful spin-offs?

I never knew that NASA was around in 1907 when nakelite [wikipedia.org] was developed. And computers only exist because of the Apollo mission? Darn. I am sure interested in those 200 others. Probably you will include The non-stick pan with Teflon [wikipedia.org] as well which was invented in 1938.

And obviously all these 200 would not have been developed without the Apollo Mission and even more important, the money spend on those invention would not have been spend in any way and this would not have generated any taxes.

Better to continue gathering knowledge and refining launch vehicles until there is some pressing need to shoot people into space.

...like sending them up to the Indian space station, or visiting the Chinese moon base.

If you take the long view, Obama's plan to slow down the US space program may be the best thing for it. The most progress NASA ever made was while trying to catch up with the Russians, so trying to recreate the same circumstances might...

So the space program not only killed seven people, but needlessly killed seven people.

If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires, both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid.

The US space program has killed 14 people within spacecraft, 3 more in a test craft.

Countless test pilots have been killed in experimental aircraft.

These people know the situations they're put in, and to die on the job like they did, and to call it needless, grossly insults their memory. These people put their lives on the line for the betterment of science and humanity and I highly doubt any of them would want it any other way.

Robots can't do everything repairs to equipment for one are tough to do because of the delay and not seeing the full picture. Manned endeavors are ways to get the general public interested in science again to do this requires great feats which have been canceled by Obama so we don't intimidate countries that hate us. Furthermore I think it is Obama's goal to make the US weak because nobody hates a loser, but nobody respects one either.

It's a nice change from the Amerika so many of us were coming to know and hate.

So how is letting Iran develop nuclear weapons making the US stronger, a day after obama said China would back an embargo on Iran China said no and promptly sold two tankers of gasoline to Iran. obama is perceived as weak and other leaders do not respect him they know he does not have the stomach or the balls for the international power game. What has the US gotten out of all the appeasing China, Russia, Iran, NKorea,... all still hate us and seem to take great pleasure in doing the opposite of what obama

You're right about cost but I think you're wrong about capabilities. We know more about the moon as a result of the Apollo program than we do as a result of all the unmanned missions combined. A few guys on Mars could do what the rovers have done in a couple of months. Human beings are much more adaptable than any robot that will could conceivably be made within the next 20 years, probably more like 50 years.

What holds space flight back is the cost. Its simply too hard to get anything into orbit right now, let alone the extra weight of life support and supplies that human beings need. Not to mention that if we're ever going to have long range space flight we're going to need to start building ships big enough that they can be spun for gravity. The cost of launching that much material right now makes it impossible but there are, as I see it, two ways around the problem.

One: New launch technologies. There have been technologies on the drawing board that would revolutionize space travel for decades, but nothing has gone anywhere because the funds for R&D have always been spent on current missions and incremental improvements to existing designs. Nuclear rockets have been possible for at least 30 years, but public fears have made them impossible. Non-rocket launch technologies aren't really feasible yet, maybe in 20 or 30 years but current materials are either inadequate or too close to trust in such an expensive and high profile endeavor.

Two: Pull us up by our bootstraps. Launching a manned interplanetary ship from earth is too hard? Build it in orbit then. Mine the materials from NEO's, set up foundries and chemical refineries in orbit, process water and out of asteroids, and build orbital refueling stations. By the time the orbital infrastructure is set up, the materials for a space elevator will be there and it can be manufactured in orbit, eliminating the cost of launching the cable and allowing it to be manufactured as it is being deployed, saving time and money.

A few guys on Mars could do what the rovers have done in a couple of months.

Actually, I've read somewhere that the amount of geological study performed by both Spirit and Opportunity together (I think) would amount to a single Earth's geologist's (busy) working day - perhaps save for the distance traveled. Pity that I haven't saved that bookmark.

Because it's far more expensive. Robots can't be programmed to react to strange things. So 1 in 5 shuttles blows up and kills 2 people; versus 5 in 5 shuttles blowing up and costing a trillion and a half dollars each. The research grinds to a halt, and because we fail on a technological level at something, some threat later becomes insurmountable, and hundreds of millions of people die. Oops.

Lets see how much cheaper his plan is once Russia jacks up their prices for getting into LEO and the US has no alternative. Once you disband these programs you can't decide later on to just start them back up. If Obama's plans fail then the US will have to invest huge sums of money to get back to where NASA currently is.

Given that almost everything in the technology industry came directly or indirectly as a result of NASA and the space program, it's value is obvious. Most of us who read Slashdot owe the effort that went into the Apollo program for our jobs. The microprocessor, for example, was invented by Intel FOR the space program.

That's NASA FUD. Microprocessors were not invented for the space program. Apollo and the Shuttle both predate Intel, and both had non-integrated CPUs. Microprocessors were invented to ma

"This will diminish America's technological superiority and our lead in spaceflight."That's pretty stupid. Let me guess: You ahven't rad the proposed changes, and don't even understand what he wants cut?

Fucking idiot.

The constellation program was going poorly. The previous administration kept micromanaging it and demands result based on a complete unrealistic and made up timeline. Plus the results they wanted kept changing.SO the contellation program had ended up with bugs and delays.Thbis is not opinion, it's fact.

He doesn't want ti stiop manned flight; he wants it done properly.

"He has shown nothing but contempt for our allies"Then why are all are allies praising him? why is are foreign relations doing better now then in the last 10 years?Stop letting Fox news think for you.

"Given that almost everything in the technology industry came directly or indirectly as a result of NASA and the space program, it's value is obvious"which is why we wants to increase NASAs budget... dick head.

"The microprocessor, for example, was invented by Intel FOR the space program."yes, and nw better robotics are being developed for the space mission. your point?

"A full blown effort to return to the moon, to stay there permanently, and to push on to Mars would greatly benefit not only the United States but the worldtrue, but to do it we will need robotics to help us. Why not send robots to build the basic structures before we get there? use robots to gather material? land supplies before men arrive. Use robots to gather basic soil samples and do analyses in the field. Put mankind there to do science and develop new technologies that will be needed to go to Mars, and then to planets around other stars?

"With the cancellation of Constellation, we will be retiring the shuttle by next year, WITHOUT A REPLACEMENT EVEN ON THE DRAWING BOARD!"SO you are saying we should keep putting money into a failing program just ebcase nothing else is 'on the drawing board"? really? talk about fiscal irresponsibility. BTW, there are several other programs 'on the drawing board' Once again, your irrational views of the president are causing you to make logical flaws.

"And to those who say "cancel the space program, we have hungry people here on Earth""I dont' say that, and I am well aware of the benefits of space mission RnD. You seem to think there will be no benefit to mankind from developing robotic missions. Why?

Please read on what and why he want's to make changes. We can have a discussion on those merits without you bringing in you incorrect assumption about Obama.

You and people like you are starting to look ridiculous. You blame everything on Obama. You don't even discuss the pros or cons of what he suggests you simple take the 'Obama wants it therefor I'm against it and I don't need to bother to think a our it at all approach." You are better then that.